Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Japanese Segmentation Perspective Yasuo AWATA Active Fault Research Center, Geol.Surv.Japan, AIST WGCEP workshop at Caltech, March 15, 2006.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 Japanese Segmentation Perspective Yasuo AWATA Active Fault Research Center, Geol.Surv.Japan, AIST WGCEP workshop at Caltech, March 15, 2006."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 1 Japanese Segmentation Perspective Yasuo AWATA Active Fault Research Center, Geol.Surv.Japan, AIST WGCEP workshop at Caltech, March 15, 2006

3 2 Contents  Earthquake-Segment by the ERC - 5-km threshold  Behavioral-Segment by the AFRC,GSJ - 2-km threshold - 21-km-long in average - New relationship between D and L

4 3 Probabilities of Shaking for Coming 30 Years by ERC of the Government (2005)  Active faults  Earthquakes along subducting plate  Other earthquakes

5 4 Active Fault Research Project in Japan ■ 1995 - 2005 ■ Evaluated by ERC Single scenario Earthquake segment 5-km-threshould

6 5 Best-Estimated Earthquake-Segment by ERC  5-km-thresould ( Matsuda, 1990)  145 best-estimated earthquake segments  12 paleoseismological segments

7 6 Behavioral Segments for Multiple Scenario (AFRC,GSJ)  Variability of Earthquake Segment

8 7 Multi-Segment Rupture of 1999 Ismit Earthquake  6 Geometric Segments  5-6 Seismological subevents Kikuchi, 1999 Awata et al. 2003

9 8 Behavioral-Segment & Paleoseismicity  Geometric Segments Behavioral, Paleoseimic Segment Toda et al. (2003)

10 9 “Persistent” Behavioral Segment  Variability of rupture length:40-80 to 600 km  Constant slip for each cycle Kondo et al. (2004)

11 10 “Persistent” Behavioral Segment  Variability of rupture length:40-80 to 600 km  Constant slip for each cycle Kondo et al. (2004)

12 11 Segmentation of 15 Surface Ruptures in Japan  Paleoseismicity and Rupture Process  Segment length <= 35 km  Size of discontinuities <=2-10 km

13 12 Scaling laws between D and L  Dmax is proportional to earthquake segment length

14 13 Scaling laws between D and L  Dmax is proportional to earthquake segment length  Dmax is proportional to behavioral segment length

15 14 Behavioral Segment v.s. Earthquake Segment

16 15 Behavioral Segment v.s. Earthquake Segment

17 16 Behavioral Segment v.s. Earthquake Segment  Largest b-segment

18 17 Behavioral Segment v.s. Earthquake Segment  Largest b-segment  Average b-segment

19 18 Criteria for Behavioral Segment  Geometry:fault Jog >= 2 km :fault bend >=20 deg.  Paleoseismicity

20 19 Geometry of a Behavioral segment Jog

21 20 Be-Segments in Japan - Fault Length  431 behavioral-segments; Length >= 10 km, Slip rate >= 0.1 mm/y  Maximum length : ca. 70 km

22 21 Behavioral Segments - Fault Length  431 behavioral-segments; Length >= 10 km, Slip rate >= 0.1 mm/y  Maximum length : ca. 70 km 145 major earthq. segs. (by ERC, 2005) ca. 290 behavioral segs.

23 22 Behavioral Segments - Fault Length  Average :21 km  Mostly :<= 45 km

24 23 Behavioral Segments- Slip per Event ■ Paleoseimological data from 54 segments  Maximum : 9 m/event

25 24 Fault Length v.s. Slip per Event  Dave = 1.2 x 10E-4 L ca.60% of Dmax

26 25 Best-Estimated Earthquake Segments  5-km-thresould ( Matsuda, 1990)  431 b-segments are grouped into 256 e-segments  Largest e-segment consists of 15 b-segments

27 26 Scaling Laws for B & E-Segments

28 27 Scaling Laws for B & E-Segments

29 28 Scaling Laws for E & B-Segments

30 29 Scaling law for Behavioral Segment 1891 to 2000

31 30 Scaling law for Behavioral Segment 1931 Fuyun CH 1995 Sakhalin RU 1999 Chi-Chi TW 2005 Kashmir RK

32 31 Scaling law for Behavioral Segment B & R Province (dePolo et al.,1991) 1992 Landers

33 32 Scaling law for Behavioral Segment 1943 Bolu 1999 Izmit 1999 Duzce

34 33 Scaling law for Behavioral Segment

35 34 Summary  Behavioral-Segment - 2-km threshold - 21-km-long in average - New relationship between D and L  Best-Eastimeted Earthquake-Segment - 5-km threshold  Further Study for Multiple Earthquake Scenario - Geometry, Stress transfer, G-R relation

36 35 Hierarchy of segment boundaries and large earthquakes Koji

37 36 20th century segmentation ONLY Segmented faulting as a FACT NOT an idea, NOT a model Need and worthwhile testing

38 37 Repeated? NO! Based on Ambraseys and Finkel (1995), --most rupture zones are not defined.

39 38 Stationary?

40 39 Characteristic?Quasi-periodic? Predictable? Cascade?

41 40 Bolu-Mudrnu 1943--1944

42 41 Sub-characteristic or sub-A type earthquakes Characterize ‘HARD’ segment boundary ZONE


Download ppt "1 Japanese Segmentation Perspective Yasuo AWATA Active Fault Research Center, Geol.Surv.Japan, AIST WGCEP workshop at Caltech, March 15, 2006."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google